(March 28, 2014 at 1:42 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: Is everybody forgetting about the creation museum Ark, I would love to see that float (or at least attempt to)

I'd like to see it sink....in deep water....with all those shitheads aboard.

(March 28, 2014 at 5:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(March 28, 2014 at 1:42 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: Is everybody forgetting about the creation museum Ark, I would love to see that float (or at least attempt to)

I'd like to see it sink....in deep water....with all those shitheads aboard.

I would love to see it sink as well.

(March 28, 2014 at 1:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Just because something hasn't been explained, doesn't mean it can't be explained. I literally listed evidence for the Big Bang. I gave you a link for evidence that non-matter can in fact be imbued with mass. The question of "Why" is another non sequitur. Something clearly happened. "How" is the question being looked into. To assume the de facto explanation is something supernatural for anything currently without an answer is a cut and paste right out of the 15th century. So congratulations on living up to that standard.

I can't believe I have to keep reiterating my point. I'm asking what the environment was like before the "big bang". You can't just apply what happens in the known universe to the era (or what ever you want to call it) before the "big bang". If on the other hand your asserting that the environment in the known universe, is no different than the was it was like before the "big bang", then you do so without evidence. Sounds like faith to me.

(March 28, 2014 at 1:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: You are taking these quotes as not metaphor? Okay. Your religious text boils an unproven concept down to photons. Now prove your god exists.

you do realize the God came down himself, preformed a bunch of miracles, and raised people from the dead ect. Yet even he couldn't get everyone to believe him, as a matter of fact there was one city he went to where he was unable to preform any miracles because the unbelief was so rampant. you expect me to do better?

Quote:Matthew 13:58
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief

.

You see, the gifts of God are operated by faith.

Quote:Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

And with out faith, the Bible states it is impossible to please God.

Quote:Hebrews 11
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So you insisting on "proof" shows you are not one of Abraham's seed.

Quote:Galatians 3:7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Therefore if you really wanted proof, you'd be out looking for it. As it says in the previous passage God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Keeping with our theme of analogies, say i'm camping beside a river for instance, and I see you floating by in a boat. I happen the know the area and I know that your headed towards a waterfall. I'm obligated to warn you, but if you insist upon proof, i'm not obligated to provide it. Either take my word for it or don't, I'm not the one in danger. The smart move is to get out of the water and go see for yourself.

Quote:Philippians 2
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

(March 28, 2014 at 1:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I would not claim to know anything until I EVALUATED THE FUCKING EVIDENCE. While it seems you are okay to look at something and claim to know everything about it, I would go and investigate and challenge my preconceptions. I would look at the patterns, look for a natural explanation to the observed phenomena. What if I go out there and find a piece of plywood with rope attached to it? Could I then surmise that maybe people did it? How would I know anything until I evaluated the evidence?

Like I said, I keep having to reiterate my point. What part of no evidence don't you understand? You will never find evidence, so in that case you will never find anything to dispute the claim of "aliens'. Therefore you will never be able to say for certain that "aliens" weren't involved.

(March 28, 2014 at 3:35 pm)Chas Wrote: Nope - I do not have to accept magic as the answer.

If all of the mass-energy of the universe is added up, the total is 0. That's right - zip, nada, zilch. That is because the gravitational energy is negative and balances the positive energy of matter and radiation.

If that is the case, then not one thing was 'created out of nothing' in the way that you mean. As has been pointed out, particle pairs pop in and out of existence all the time. That is not creating anything because they precisely offset each other. And there is no net loss when they annihilate.

As Krauss and others point out, 'nothing' is unstable.

But were not talking about the universe are we? We are talking about before the universe existed. Unless you are saying that you accept by faith that (since there is no evidence) the state of the universe now and whatever the state of existence was before the "big bang" are the same.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I can't believe I have to keep reiterating my point. I'm asking what the environment was like before the "big bang". You can't just apply what happens in the known universe to the era (or what ever you want to call it) before the "big bang". If on the other hand your asserting that the environment in the known universe, is no different than the was it was like before the "big bang", then you do so without evidence. Sounds like faith to me.

You are spectacularly dense, aren't you? Are you just not able to remember what we've already talked about, what your original question was? I already said that I do not know what happened before the moment of the big bang. Or even if before the big bag even means anything. I'm okay with that until the evidence comes in. What is for sure is that there is nothing at all to suggest that anything supernatural occurred.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote: you do realize the God came down himself, preformed a bunch of miracles, and raised people from the dead ect. Yet even he couldn't get everyone to believe him, as a matter of fact there was one city he went to where he was unable to preform any miracles because the unbelief was so rampant. you expect me to do better?

Bare assertion. Not worth any effort. What does this have to do with anything?

(March 29, 2014 at 12:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Therefore if you really wanted proof, you'd be out looking for it. As it says in the previous passage God "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

I am open to proof. I just will not allow you to make an assertion of fact, a positive claim, and just move on as if that is enough. If you are going to take part in intelligent debate, you have to back up your own claims, not me.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Keeping with our theme of analogies, say i'm camping beside a river for instance, and I see you floating by in a boat. I happen the know the area and I know that your headed towards a waterfall. I'm obligated to warn you, but if you insist upon proof, i'm not obligated to provide it. Either take my word for it or don't, I'm not the one in danger. The smart move is to get out of the water and go see for yourself.

You really don't understand metaphors, huh? Man, you are showing your true colors all over this forum. Excellent. So this analogy has no relation whatsoever to what we're talking about. You've introduced odds and consequences. Not only do I have no reason to question someone who is warning me of danger, I have a vested interest in believing you because it's the smart thing to do. This has nothing to do with an unexplained phenomena, and the idea that one cannot evaluate evidence if one denies having knowledge.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Like I said, I keep having to reiterate my point. What part of no evidence don't you understand? You will never find evidence, so in that case you will never find anything to dispute the claim of "aliens'. Therefore you will never be able to say for certain that "aliens" weren't involved.

Did you just hijack my analogy? Did you just arbitrarily define things so that there is somehow no evidence---so that your dumb ass stance that I cannot evaluate evidence for your claim works? You are just the most idiotic person on the whole internet. Congratulations.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 28, 2014 at 1:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I would not claim to know anything until I EVALUATED THE FUCKING EVIDENCE. While it seems you are okay to look at something and claim to know everything about it, I would go and investigate and challenge my preconceptions. I would look at the patterns, look for a natural explanation to the observed phenomena. What if I go out there and find a piece of plywood with rope attached to it? Could I then surmise that maybe people did it? How would I know anything until I evaluated the evidence?

Like I said, I keep having to reiterate my point. What part of no evidence don't you understand? You will never find evidence, so in that case you will never find anything to dispute the claim of "aliens'. Therefore you will never be able to say for certain that "aliens" weren't involved.

your logic is faulty.

The above would only stand if people, when asked a specific question about (for example) "where did the universe come from" answered along the lines of "I/We don't know, but the evidence seems to suggest x, y & z"

If you replied simply...:



...then that's a burden of proof claim, and it can be dismissed if there is nothing to back it up.

This is exactly the same as saying "It was god". There is no difference. You need to reassess the logic of your argument.

It is worth pointing out -again- that there is no reason to believe that there was a big bang in the sense of a hard beginning of time itself back 13.7 billion years ago. There is no singularity because the evidence points to something like inflation, and what was before inflation and what was the role of time before inflation is not clear. The singularity at time 0 is a mathematical artifact of extrapolating a theory beyond its range of validity.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 28, 2014 at 3:35 pm)Chas Wrote: Nope - I do not have to accept magic as the answer.

If all of the mass-energy of the universe is added up, the total is 0. That's right - zip, nada, zilch. That is because the gravitational energy is negative and balances the positive energy of matter and radiation.

If that is the case, then not one thing was 'created out of nothing' in the way that you mean. As has been pointed out, particle pairs pop in and out of existence all the time. That is not creating anything because they precisely offset each other. And there is no net loss when they annihilate.

As Krauss and others point out, 'nothing' is unstable.

But were not talking about the universe are we? We are talking about before the universe existed. Unless you are saying that you accept by faith that (since there is no evidence) the state of the universe now and whatever the state of existence was before the "big bang" are the same.

I am making no claim whatsoever about the state of things before the Big Bang. I don't know what was before the Big Bang, or even if 'before' has any meaning in that context.

I am pointing out that we have evidence that what looks like creation ex nihilo isn't necessarily. So we have a reasonable basis on which to theorize about the Big Bang.

There is no evidence that magic is the answer. Magic has never been the answer to our questions about the universe. Not once. Not ever.
So it is not reasonable to assume it.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:01 am)Huggy74 Wrote: you do realize the God came down himself, preformed a bunch of miracles, and raised people from the dead ect. Yet even he couldn't get everyone to believe him, as a matter of fact there was one city he went to where he was unable to preform any miracles because the unbelief was so rampant.

Much like Uri Geller then...

(March 29, 2014 at 12:30 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: You are spectacularly dense, aren't you? Are you just not able to remember what we've already talked about, what your original question was? I already said that I do not know what happened before the moment of the big bang. Or even if before the big bag even means anything. I'm okay with that until the evidence comes in. What is for sure is that there is nothing at all to suggest that anything supernatural occurred.

Like I already stated, I'm fine with the answer "I don't know", but you insist upon posting irrelevant links. Also the since it can't be explained scientifically it can be defined as supernatural.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

su·per·nat·u·ral adjective \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:30 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Bare assertion. Not worth any effort. What does this have to do with anything?

you asked for proof, my point was that if Jesus himself couldn't prove himself to be the messiah, what makes you think I could do any better. Is there evidence? yes. But what I may accept as enough evidence, you may not.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:30 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I am open to proof. I just will not allow you to make an assertion of fact, a positive claim, and just move on as if that is enough. If you are going to take part in intelligent debate, you have to back up your own claims, not me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I haven't started one thread on these forums. And I restrict myself to the christianity sub forum

(March 29, 2014 at 12:30 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: You really don't understand metaphors, huh? Man, you are showing your true colors all over this forum. Excellent. So this analogy has no relation whatsoever to what we're talking about. You've introduced odds and consequences. Not only do I have no reason to question someone who is warning me of danger, I have a vested interest in believing you because it's the smart thing to do. This has nothing to do with an unexplained phenomena, and the idea that one cannot evaluate evidence if one denies having knowledge.

Actually my analogy was perfect, sorry it went over your head.

(March 29, 2014 at 12:30 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Did you just hijack my analogy? Did you just arbitrarily define things so that there is somehow no evidence---so that your dumb ass stance that I cannot evaluate evidence for your claim works? You are just the most idiotic person on the whole internet. Congratulations.

Did you forget what you wrote? Here let me refresh you memory.

(March 28, 2014 at 12:32 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I sure can begin to dispute something for which there is no evidence. You are showing your profound ignorance on every level.

The discussion has always been about no evidence. But since you seem confused let's make it simple. can you say with absolute certainty that there is no God?
Yes or no?

Quote:This is exactly the same as saying "It was god". There is no difference. You need to reassess the logic of your argument.

The difference, Fidel, is that "aliens" are mathematically possible if improbable. "God" is just bullshit.